 John Friedrich, how are you? Hey, how you doing, Tom? How you doing, Tom? Oh, well, thank you. Excellent. Somebody has a radio on the background. If you could turn it off, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Budweiser? No. Souser water. You are. Oh, well. Oh, Paulie. Hello. Hello, Carla. Carla. How are you guys? Good. How about you? Just living the dream. All right. I can assure you that when. Our applicants don't want our board members that I really hate this. How do you team? Oh, okay. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. That's not the process. I love the process. Who's that eight three one nine phone. Yeah, this is John Connor, my audio and my computer's not working tonight. Okay, John. Where's Mr. Chair? Hi, Tor. Hello. Cindy. Cindy, what's your last name and all anybody else with you? Good. How are you doing? Your audio, your video is not on if you wanted it on. I'm trying to get it. For some reason it's being uncooperative here. I may be able to help. I'm able to take the camera. I just literally got off and a zoom call for the town of Stowe. D there be. For better than them. This is not a competition, guys. All with life as a competition. If men are involved. That would be good. If I can get that video working. I don't know what the issue is here. Call our chair here. I don't know what's going on. Let me jump off, Tom, and I'll jump back on. If I can get this thing to her. I have a clue. One more time. Left again. Yeah, I say it's going to try again is Bob come. Please tell me Bob's coming. Yeah. I just talked to him and I. Okay. I did. I was going to say, I really have not. Again, my apologies. There he is. Chris. Christopher. Robert, how was your knee? vaguely remember you. No. He is good. Thank you, sir. Yeah. So, again, my apologies. Let me. I don't have the latest application, but anyway. So. Call us mean to order. We have Mark. We have. Chris. Tour. Hi there, John. Polly. Carla. We could get everybody. Excellent. So. We have actually one application tonight and one continuation, but with. Start with an application by Mark Nicholson. And let me start by swearing in. Everyone is. Tests one before this board tonight. Spread tell truth. That's the truth. Matter before this board tonight. Tonight. On the penalties of perjury. Chris. Where's your hand? Mark. I do. Good. And Tom. Very good. So. Mark, you're going to start this off. You're going to have Chris handle it. I'll have Chris handle it. Thank you. Thank you. Chris. This application is through the construction of a 40 by 100 foot. Garage slash storage building. At Mr. Nicholson's property at 31 22 airport road. The proposal includes some stormwater management infrastructure. Some. Some filling to expand the existing parking area. Slightly. And much else. A little regrading of the existing gravel parking area. The building, the proposed building will be located in the southwest corner of the property. Meets the proposed setbacks. The building. Mark can see. We'll have a, be a single pitch roof that run. It pitches. Tip to the west toward airport road. Discharging into a. We're proposing a small. Biorotention area. 60 by 100 foot by our six by 100 foot by our attention area to, to both detain and treat the stormwater being generated off the roof of the building. Which then discharges into a. A reconfigured. Swell running around the property. To the rear. In. Like fashion at the existing property drains. The. Opposed impervious services are being reduced significantly. Between. The changes required by V. Trans for the consolidation of the. Of the curb cut onto airport road. And the. The installation of the. The buyer retention area. And the restoration of some existing gravel areas between that buyer retention area and airport road. We have a net reduction of. Some 3500 square feet is. Of impervious surface. Existing drainage patterns really aren't being changed. The final discharge. Of the, of the swale, the receiving swale around the back of the property. Although just dead ends down there. And it seems to just dissipate or disappear into the ground as in the existing condition. We did meet with Chip and Henry. You to talk about this proposal with them prior to making application. And they said, you know, it seems to work now. We know I have never seen any issues with any water running down across the backyard. And so we were comfortable with it. Other than that, I think it's fairly straightforward. We've addressed the development criteria. Specifically. Line by line and the submittals. One note that we are in the airport overlay district here. We have submitted. We've reached out to Jennifer Davis at. V trans air division. She said, you should be good to go. But advised. And Tom confirmed that we needed to. To get a sign off by the FAA that, that application for that construction review has been submitted. And it's in there. And in their queue. Given their. Their 45 day review window that they have. So that should be forthcoming the proposed building peak elevation being only 18 feet above grade is still some. 12 to 15 feet below the power lines along. Along airport road. So we don't anticipate any issues with the airport. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Tom, do you have any comments with regard to this application? You're on mute. A reminder that probably about six months ago, there was a. The RB added heard an application and approved for a. Penske truck rental or some. A rental truck. There. So, so that's the property. A part of the existing use. And if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. So that's the property. Part of the existing use. And if you recall on that application, they were required to get an LOI from agency transportation. What I sent you guys. In the effort to save trees was just the. Cover letter from that. You had the original a lot of LOI from the rig. From the first application back in. In October of 2019. So there is an existing LOI B trans LOI. For this project as well. I have a question with regard to that. Have those improvements been made yet? They have not. I was waiting to just do everything together. All right. Thank you. Questions by members of the board. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I just wondering why you show what was the. Sort of reasoning behind the decision of locating the building. Where you're proposing. I think. Mostly for handling the storm, you know, run off because we can retain it in a stone ditch. Yeah, we. We don't want to discharge directly over. To our parking lot or over the bank directly without, without some management and detention between. Between there and the foot of the hill. This in addition. I believe the regs prefer to see the parking lots located to the rear of the building, as opposed to the other way around. And this serves that purpose as well. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. Mark that the stone ditch is now a bio retention area. Okay. That's why I let Chris do the talking. Yeah. And that again, as, as, as I since spelled out in the, in the application materials, we've sized that using the, the league of cities and towns, green infrastructure sizing criteria. Actually, Tom's the one that put me onto that. So I just, I just, I'm, I just want to give you some more context. Any good any good things and anything to, any good, I don't want to be in any good hands. If that would be handy for, for dealing with these non-regulatory sites and, and providing something that somebody can hang their hats on relative to stormwater management. And I. Also on reiterate that, that from a sizing standpoint, this is this what we've proposed. Is, this half again as large as it needs to be. of limiting impacts on what goes down the downhill. I just have a question about the parking that was associated with the previous permit. It seems as though there was a lot more parking requested than I'm seeing suggested in this application for the other permitted use. I can probably help with that Carla. So Penske generally has eight to 10 trucks there. His use won't change and it's been going on for I think over a year now. Actually the use of the whole property won't change but he generally has eight to 10 trucks there and he's a sole proprietor. So it is one personal vehicle. So. Okay, because it seems as though there was much there was more indicated in the application but if that's what's happening is that what we need to know? And I think the other thing to keep in mind is that the building is intended to house some of the vehicles that are associated with Nikon that Mr. Nicholson is already parking there. So it is, yes it's taken up some of the footprint out there but it also is providing those parking spaces and again getting the vehicles out of the weather and securing them better. How many vehicles do you think you'll park inside the building Mark? I could probably house 10. I think last winter we probably had 20 trucks parked down there because in the winter we don't operate. So they're just parked and left there but with a hundred foot building you should be able to put 10 in there and like I say the use overall the usage won't change from what we've been doing. Thank you. I'm gonna go through the criteria unless somebody else has a general question we'll go through the criteria but it was rapidly because the applicant has really provided testimony on every criteria. Yep. So unless somebody has any questions I'm gonna move right through it. We already spoke about the fact that it's an airport or a district and we will get comments back from FAA. Any other questions about that? No. I think in terms of the parking and loading areas we've talked about that a little bit here. Any questions about maximum amount of parking? Is there requesting more parking spaces than our rules provide for it? But that's because they're storing vehicles there for work persons. Anybody have a problem with that? I'm not reading through the criteria I'm not gonna ask the applicant to do that unless somebody wants to do that. Does anybody want me to go through those criteria? No, I think it's well stated. I do have one question only because I didn't follow the math and that's because in two different places Chris or Mark, you have indicated that you've increased the parking area but you've decreased the footprint. And I don't follow the math on how you just decreased the footprint by 3,500 square feet. Again, there's a bunch of area there that as a condition of the VTrans access permit that need to be there in previous services that are already fired of the existing calculation that are being gonna be restored to lawn as a necessity under the VTrans permit along airport road. But that was part of a previous permit, right? Well, I guess the answer is I'm addressing the condition that exists today without those improvements having been made. Yes, but we already addressed those improvements and we already made out of condition of previous. Were there additional? I mean, you're increasing the parking area slightly. Yes. As I see it, on the other hand, you're increasing the amount of treatment area over what you had before. Am I missing something here? I don't see a 3,500 square feet being taken away. No, no, again, again, I wasn't aware of that, to be honest with you, I wasn't aware of that previous approval that that LOI was associated with a prior approval. I was looking at the existing condition on the ground today, not, again, my number of comparison that you see there is a comparison between not the approved footprint, but the existing impervious surface as on the ground today. Oh, what you say, what you're saying, Chris, is that this permit and the previous Penske permit collectively there'll be a 3,500 square foot reduction in previous certifications? I guess, yes, that's a good way to put it, Tom, exactly. Well, we're gonna give Mark, we were gonna give Mark credit for that before. Yeah, you know, what I can say is that we do have some, we have some reclaimed areas between the bioretention area and the airport road that might not otherwise have been, that wouldn't have been. The V-trans requirements would only required being reclaimed out to the right-of-way line. So we have the area, the bioretention area that is no longer in previous surface. And we also have, not from an impervious, again, we kind of have to throw out my numbers, I guess. We have a parking expansion on the backside, but we are also collecting 4,000 square feet of roof into the bioretention area that was just surface sheet flow off the gravel parking area, mostly directed in the same direction. So I guess, yes, you're absolutely right, Bob, in light of the earlier approval, that those numbers don't fly. And I have the ability to get you back, better numbers, if you're there with me. That's right, I think I understood. You're breaking up. I just, I assumed you were doing, I said, my apologies. You hear that? I mean, you hear me now? Yes. Atcha now. All right, thank you. Um, we're out in the outskirts of real life, and we don't have much service here. I'll try turning off your video. Are we in tune now? Can you hear me? Yes, right now. Gladly, I have to find it first. Video, where the hell is it? Oh, there it is, stop video. Is that better? Yes. Do you hear me now? Yes. Thank you. Yeah, I also have another computer running in the same room, which is probably not a good thing, but that's for another application afterwards. Access, circulation, anybody have questions about that? Landscape and screening. I thought these were all well-addressed. The rows of control, store management. Again, goes back to the same question about these square footages, but I think we just had an answer on that. And any other questions regarding the application by any member of the board? No, I don't. Hearing none, Tom, do you have any further questions or comments you'd like to make? No, just a comment. I just want to say thank you to the applicants for a professionally prepared and submitted application. So thank you. Yeah, once in a while. Mark, are you still up? I'm here, Chris's credit. Mark, are you still on VRB and Barry? No, actually I sold my home in Barry and full time in Danville, but I'm on the Danville Planning Commission. Danville, oh my goodness. That's right, you moved. Yeah. Very good. Okay. If there are any further questions for the board? Oh. I'm moving. For the, from the board, for the applicant. Okay, the motion's in to vote. You're just asking for a motion to close the hearing. In a second, so moved. Second. Okay, I have three. I'll start with John. Second. Polly. Thank you. We have a motion second to close the board portion's hearing. All those favor the motion, please proceed by saying aye. Aye. Carla, aye. Aye. We're aye. Yeah, Robert, aye. Tom, Tom, can you guys hear me? Yeah, I can, Bob. Okay, thank you. Okay, well, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, folks. Thank you, Mark. Thank you. See you in the Killing Fields, Bob. Yes, yes, we will. Good night, folks. Good night. Thanks, thanks, Mark. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we have the continuation of the application by RHTL. And Tom, have you allowed those people to join us yet? Or the RSC, I see Jeff. Yes, Bob. Yep, the applicant and the, a lot of the neighbors are attending this meeting now. Okay. Tom, I'm turning my video on again. If I have any trouble being heard, you need to let me know. I will do that. I don't see my video, but that's all right. That's because you stopped me. Down on the left. Thank you, and now to restart, Bob. Pardon? Thank you, and now to restart your... Okay, we'll try it again. There you are. You're on. Okay. And who else do we have on besides Jeff? John Conner, Orca, Jeff Oleske, Michelle and Adam Lamber, Cindy and Mike Noyes. And I believe that's it. Okay, all members that have been previously sworn in. Am I correct about that? Continuation. So I guess everybody is sworn in from the continuation. Yeah, there are no new participants. Okay, I think we recessed this last time on one issue only, and it had to do with the lighting. So I'm going to open this back up to the applicant. The applicant's representative, Jeff, and speak to us about the changes in the lighting plan. Any changes in the plans? Yeah, and I do apologize. I guess before I get started, I just wanted to make sure that everybody received the email from earlier today with a revised lighting plan from what was mailed to you last week. My sincere apologies for that. Not that I want to bore anyone with details, but long story short is LSI, who's the lighting manufacturer and designer, coordinating this with the representative, I guess have had quite a bit of technical difficulties over the last few weeks, and an attempt to get a revised plan in time for this meeting, they had pulled older background information because they didn't have their server up and running to get the new stuff and created a whole new revised lighting plan that met the standards, got us all below two-foot candles in the three areas that we were discussing at the last meeting. But in issuing that plan and getting it out, we noticed that the building footprint, the background information essentially hadn't been updated. And so they spent quite a bit of time last two days redoing that, essentially incorporating their revised lighting scheme with the new background. And that was ultimately, was provided to us late last night. I think it's important to get that in everybody's hands so that there was no confusion between the discrepancies in the background information, the lighting plan. With that being said, we are proposing now the lighting plan that was emailed out today, which again, a lot of the facts of that lighting plan still are linked to the background that we provided previously, namely that we've had the lighting designer essentially focus the lighting summary into three specific areas that are highlighted by three colors on that site plan that you have in front of you. And there's a green area, which is the lower or lot B that we're calling it. There's a orange area, which is they're calling the upper side lot, which is the Marvin Road or lot A parking area. And then there's the building parking lot, which is highlighted in pink. And there is now a summary with those three specific areas all outlined on that lighting plan that show that the average maximum lighting level is at two or below. So, we've took the comments from the last meeting and the understanding that the board was going to essentially ensure that these new lighting standards of a maximum two foot candle and all parking areas were met. And we feel that the lighting designer has gone ahead and provided a plan that does that. So I do apologize for the late addition to the slightly revised plan, but really the lighting layout didn't change much. It was most specifically because the parking, the perimeter parking didn't change. It was really just a building footprint. As the architects continue to tweak the building footprint, there's little just changes in jobs and things. So the location of like the wall path, the building mounted lights need to be tweaked a little bit and updated accordingly. I will say all the previous plans that we have submitted as part of the civil set did still have all that background information updated. So it was really just a lighting plan that needed that refresher. So I guess with that being said, I'll turn over the board with any specific questions on this revised lighting plan, hoping that you're willing to accept the one that we emailed out this morning. Tom. Hi there, Tom. Yeah, I'm reading the map on the floor. Okay. Mine's behind me, but members of the board, any questions? So I do not know how to read lighting plans. I will freely admit that. My question is, are you averaging those little numbers in the areas within the boundaries of the property or are you using the numbers like in the road and when you average it? Yeah, so that specifically the summary that you see in the middle lower portion of the plan that has the three highlighted areas and they're outlined building parking area, lower side lot only, upper side lot only, those are averaging the calculations just within essentially edge of pavement. So it's taking no values from beyond the edge of pavement incorporating into that average. So the two foot candles average maximum is specifically, essentially anywhere you see pavement or sidewalk is included in that, nothing beyond it. Okay. And if it helped, I could pull up the current, the newest plan from today and show you specifically those three areas if you felt it was necessary, it would help. That would help me if you did that. I just sort of pointed it out. Sure. So bear with me a second. I'm gonna share this current plan and let me know if you guys can't see this. So again, here's the summary chart. I'm referring to in the bottom that shows the pink, the green and the orange areas. And I'm gonna zoom in the lot B here first. And I know it's fine to see but on a full size plan, it's probably reasonable but you can see the green perimeter which matches the edge of pavement around the parking lot. That green line or polygon essentially is the area that's being used to calculate the two foot candle mat, the average which is summarized on the green light line item here with a maximum of 4.4 and a minimum of 0.7. And then similarly for the other parking lots, there's an orange outline along the edge of parking here. And then with the building, we have around the perimeter parking lot and then obviously we cut out the building. So it's literally just the perimeter parking around the building and nothing else. So I hope that applies a little bit. Thank you, Jeff, that's helpful. Other questions by the board members? Well, hearing none, I think you would address what we asked for which is what you need to meet the standards. Standards are two, standards apply to the area involved, not beyond the perimeter which you've done that. And that has actually significantly reduced the amount of lighting in that out a lot. Are there other questions by the zoning administrator who's been studying the plans vigorously? All cats. And the members of the board? No, I'm all set. Okay, I cannot see who else is on board right now, but let me ask any if should party if they have further questions regarding the lighting. This is John Connor. I have a question for the board and also for Jeff as the applicant for RHTO, but it refers back to previous conversations, not necessarily to lighting. And if you wanna take any other questions about lighting first, I just have a question about the traffic on site. John, I hear you. Let me just wait one minute to see if anybody has questions about lighting, especially those that live very close. Hearing none, they can go ahead and John, Jeff, can you address this question, please? Thank you. So yeah, I'll just take a minute. I continue to have issues with the development of this property as it relates to traffic, both on and off the property. Again, today, coming back to my office, I was greeted by a car carrier being offloaded on route two in the breakdown lane of route two, so on the opposite side from the dealership. And as I was coming into our office to turn left, the car carrier is in the breakdown lane, which immediately eliminates the opportunity for people to go around me because I'm turning left into my driveway. And the potential of an accident there is very, very great. And this is something we see regularly because for whatever reason, they do not use their existing property to offload and transport vehicles on and off the property. And it hit me the other day when I'm thinking about all the other car dealerships throughout the town of Berlin, I can't imagine the board or anyone else approving development on a property, especially with two adjoining car dealerships on both sides of the road without requiring them to have a place to offload vehicles off of the town right away and off of the state right away. And I can't imagine it would happen at the Volkswagen dealership the capital city bought or 802 Toyota or the Dodge dealership on the Barrymore player road. I can't imagine anybody would say, it's perfectly fine to develop a piece of property without having proper access for taking deliveries and transferring vehicles on and off the site. And the challenge I have with this development is that both the current GMC dealership and the proposed Volkswagen Mazda dealership do not address adequately trucks coming and going from the property and their ability to offload and unload vehicles off of the town right away and off of the state right away. And we continue to see them doing this out on the roadway on a regular basis. And the fact that there hasn't been an accident yet is very surprising. So I just, I challenged the board with this issue because this is a real issue. And the fact that neither site has the ability to take deliveries of vehicles should be addressed and should be required. When this property, when this parking lot at 1189 was developed and it was developed by Jeff or designed by Jeff, it was designed to take vehicles and have all the deliveries done on this lot. And then the trucks were to exit and exit out Marvin Road. And they just don't do it that way. And certainly with the additional building that's proposed to be built, it cannot be done. So I asked the board to take that into serious consideration because it's not being addressed. John, what time did you observe that this morning? This afternoon, I took a picture of the car carrier out in the road as well. What time was it? Let me just look up timestamp on the photo. I'm sure you can find it. 12.05 this afternoon. Okay, thank you. Can I just ask? My recollection is that the testimony was that the truck would be offloaded behind the new building. Is that accurate? I mean, and I understand what you're saying, John. I just wanna know what the testimony is regarding this application again. Yeah, and I'm not sure if John was not, I feel like we went over this in some relative detail at one of these meetings. There's been a few now, obviously, but the intent of the current plan for loading offloading vehicles is to utilize the new site behind the building as we discussed pulling down on a Marvin Road into behind the building, vehicles to be loaded offloaded there and then backed out on the Goodnell Road, back on a Marvin and on the Routou. And we've confirmed turning radio and everything from that perspective and we can provide supplemental documentation with those turning movements if it was deemed necessary. AOT's already requested it, so we've already done that work. And so we've gone through the process of developing the whole intent of the widening and upgrading of Marvin Road was to make these accommodations. We were aware that it was a significant issue for the town and AOT as well as neighbors from the very get-go. And we will always strive to ensure that that was adequately addressed as part of the application. I certainly, obviously, once things get constructed and built, I obviously have little ability to manage the site and that's on the owner to adhere to that. And again, I think we talked about this as well of conditions and approval that outlines specifically what the expectation is for vehicle delivery so that there's an enforceable action there to this and moving forward in the future. But that has always been the intent for us and why Marvin Road's upgrade or our proposal. Jeff, go on. Jeff. And I do. Go ahead, sorry. Jeff, let me just ask a question just to clarify. The offloading of vehicles in behind the building for the Mazda Volkswagen dealership, does that also include GMC or we do not include GMC in that? I believe that is the intent, is that all vehicles will be delivered back there. So yes, that's my understanding of how Able's related to me. Or I should say I related to Able. Thank you. Somebody else was speaking? Yes, I was just, this is John Connor again. I was just gonna say that that plan is great on paper but I think you've got a 25 foot setback behind the building to the property line. And I just don't see that happening certainly with snow storage or winter time or for the most part, independent drivers that don't adhere to whatever regulations you may agree to at the time of permitting. That parking lot right now at 1189 is maybe got 20% capacity of vehicles in it and they continue to unload vehicles out on the numbered route. It's just, it is just an accident waiting to happen. And it's a group of people that are ignoring safe work practices and it's gonna cause somebody an accident at some point. And I just don't think that it's realistic to assume that all vehicles for two properties are gonna be unloaded behind the Volkswagen dealership. I just, I don't see it happening. Not the way we've seen things operate today. John, what is your recommended solution? We require them to make a place to offload vehicles that actually works without trucks backing onto the road after they're either loaded or unloaded. I mean, the whole truck circulation doesn't work and it's not gonna work and it's not gonna be used. And even if it does get used, you're putting people at risk because now the truck's gonna be backing out onto town roadways. It's not safe truckings, not safe access. So that's just my two cents. But I think it's a problem and has been a problem and I don't see the problem being addressed with the addition of another dealership and more traffic. And I'd be surprised that the neighbors on Goodnow and Marvin Road, like that concept of trucks backing out onto the road. These truck drivers are alone all the time. There's not a second person. They don't have anybody guiding them to back out onto a road. It's just gonna be blind trucking all the time. And that's assuming that they use the property as designed. This is Mike Noistock. John, comments. Yeah, this is Mike Noistocking. I fully, I couldn't agree with John Moore. And even though the testimony says that there's going to be a second person that's going to help back up those trucks, backing up onto out of Marvin, through Marvin Road onto Goodnow Road in reality. On paper, yeah, it sounds great. Oh, we're gonna have a second guy there. In reality, it's not gonna happen and it's dangerous. Jeff, do you know where the nearest storage lot is, offsite? Currently, to that day, at least, I do not. Is it over on 302? Like, is it Randy Rulo's property? Yeah, I knew at one point they were leasing area from off of Partridge Farm Road. I don't know, I know it's evolved and changed and as they've bought out Walker, and I honestly just can't answer that question. I guess where I'm going with this is I'm wondering if they can offload vehicles at another site? It's certainly an option. I mean, obviously, I don't think it's a preference for them, but it's something that they could entertain for sure if ultimately that would be able to decision to make, obviously. But all I can say is that we've done the engineering design work to ensure that this can happen. It certainly takes some practices and protocols and I don't think any driver of these deliberate vehicles would feel comfortable backing out on the road without an alternative person there to help them guide to that position. And we talked about that at length at one point in time of how this whole thing was gonna function as far as access. It's obviously a very tight site and we acknowledge that and did our best to accommodate everything that we were trying to accommodate into this location. But I certainly understand and appreciate John and Mike and Cindy's comments. And I just feel that we've addressed them on the best of our ability previously and thought that the board was comfortable with that concept of how it was explained. So I get it. Carl, I appreciate where you're coming from with a remote location. But if it's Wildcat truckers coming, how do you force them to go there, right? Well, how do you force them to go behind the building? So that's what I'm saying. So what can be done to do that? Can this board impose a fine of X amount of dollars on the dealership if there's evidence that they're not adhering to this? And make it painful for them? I don't know if we have that ability or not. Why not? If there's evidence of it, it's $3,000. And that'll get somebody's freaking attention. Yeah, I don't know that we can do that. But I mean, I guess for the very reasons that, I mean, I guess hearing that they're doing it now when there's a parking lot right there. And I guess maybe the access isn't as good as it should be on Marvin Road, maybe, but you know what's gonna happen when after the buildings built, they're doing it now. You may recall, we have a municipal ticketing in our zoning ordinance. And again, it may be that this board puts a condition that effect that a violation of this is X amount of dollars. I think we'll have to explore that a little more, but I'm not sure we actually have the municipal ticketing all the way home, but we can talk about that. Alternatively, are there ways to condition the approval that would allow Tom to intervene with a removal of their CO or something if certain conditions aren't met related to this? Or is it something where you can approach the town police department or the state police department notifying about these types of violations and having them essentially police this, so to speak. Just thinking of alternative options on how to pull their feet to the fire on it as well. Yeah. I don't think the police deal with zoning violations. Well, but it might be a violation of the, to pull around on the side of the road like that. Yeah. The reason I don't like that idea, because it puts the onus on us and not management, right? So I'd rather put the onus on management. If we could, if there's a creative way to do that, I think that's what we should. I agree. It has to start from the company or else it won't be adhered to. Although it is hard, I mean, I get that it's hard to get independent hollers to, they're looking at time and they want to be in and out. That's the bottom line. Okay. Any other comments or questions regarding this matter? We did, we did, I didn't want- Sorry, this is John Connor one more time. I just want to reiterate that it's not- It's our conversation tonight. Bob, John- We haven't discussed the other matters at length. Bob, Bob, John wants to talk. Sorry. One more time. Sorry. I'm here. Okay. Go John. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt one more time. I just want to say that I don't think it's right for the town to think about putting together a fine system and having to then police it- Go John. Go ahead, John. He is. Bob, we can hear him. Can you not hear him? He's frozen. Bob, I think you need to turn off your video. I think there's also a great concern for the residents along those side roads when you think about children coming and going, riding bicycles, vehicles, pedestrians, et cetera. Thank you. I'm just shutting it down. I'm shutting it down on the outside. I'm shutting it down on the outside running. Go ahead, John. I was just saying, I think there is an overall safety concern on the site with regard to truck and vehicle traffic. And unless the site is engineered in such a manner that trucks can easily get in and out and vehicles can easily and safely be offloaded for either the proposed site and or the existing site in addition to the proposed site. And I don't believe it's going to be utilized. And I think you're just putting the residents not only at risk of a nuisance, but at a safety risk when you think about people coming and going with trucks backing out onto the road. And I know that there are other dealerships in town that have designated offloading areas that do that all on their own property, including the movement of the truck. So the truck is driving out of the property rather than backing out of the property. To allow a site plan and to approve a site plan that understands that trucks are going to be backing blindly out onto roadways, I don't think is good planning. And I don't think that's respectful of the neighbors. And I think it increases the potential of a safety issue for all involved. Can everybody hear me now? Yes. Yes. Thank you, John. We've heard this testimony already. Is there any other additional testimony that we have not heard yet? We will take all this testimony into consideration and I appreciate your input, John. Your answer is valuable, but you are not repeating yourself. Are there any other questions by the boards or any extra party? Or members or any extra party? This is my... Hearing none. This is my... Because everybody want to hear any further testimony. Hold on, Bob. Hold on, Bob. This is my quick talking. I... Mike, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. The last time we met, you heard from four different interested parties that were all under the assumption that the 12 Marvin Road parking lot was going to be for vehicle inventory. And it was then mentioned by Abel and Jeff that that was going to be employee parking. And we challenged the board to go back and look at the testimony to review what was said. And I'm just wondering, was the board able to do that and identify, you know, is that going to be employee parking or is that going to be for vehicle inventory? Because again, there were four people, four interested parties that heard that that was going to be specifically not for employees. Thank you. I know this board discussed that. Greg, Tom. I know this board discussed that matter and it was the recollection of this board that the closest parking lot to route two was not included in the prohibition for employee parking. I have not gone through the minutes per se to look at that, but that was the general consensus of the board. That's my recollection also. Any other comments? I apologize. I keep getting this message that says I'm unstable. I know that to be true, but hopefully it's referring to my connection. I think he's zoned out. Okay. I'm not zoned out. I'm still here. Tom has turned me off though. I mean, literally turned me off. Thank you, Tom. Is there any other testimony to be heard tonight? I think we might have heard you. We'll review the data. My recollection is that the prohibition was strictly with regard to good now road. That does not mean the DRV cannot have the same prohibition for the other parking lot, but we're still, I think we're up because further consideration on that. I think I would just like to state that. That was not the testimony of the applicant. I would just like to state for the record. I think the issue is that the parking was potentially for the Volkswagen employees, but we don't know how we're going to prohibit GMC employees from parking in an employee parking lot that the Volkswagen employees park in. So I think my recollection is that there was always testimony that employees would park in that parking lot, whether it be Volkswagen employees, I'm not sure about that employees would park there. And I think it's difficult to distinguish to say, you know, for us to put police, which employees park there? So that's just my view of that issue. Is there any additional testimony come before this board tonight? If there's no additional testimony, no new testimony, can everybody hear me? Yes, I moved to adjourn this hearing. Tom, can you hear me? Yes. Can you hear us? Thank you. Carla moved to adjourn. We have four seconds. We have a, yeah, I can hear you fine. Oh, okay. That's why I don't want to say it. We're not adjourning, we're closing the warm portion of this hearing. Yes, adjourn this meeting, this is part of the hearing. Are you tour? Four seconds, yes. Very good. We have a motion to second, is to discuss that. We have a motion to second, is to discuss that motion. No discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor of that motion, please signify by saying aye. Carla, aye. John, aye. Dora, aye. Carla, take over, would you? I can't hear you, I cannot be heard. We can, I can hear you. We can hear you. Robert, aye. The hearing is closed. Okay. Thank you, everybody. Okay. Thanks, everybody, have a good evening. Thank you. So are we gonna- I think you all, I think you all for participating and I think it's actually, it's very welcome to have you all participate. Yes, it is. Yes, we have several of the business matters. I'd like to accomplish this. Oh, okay. I'd like to review and approve. And then if we so choose, we can go into a little bit of a session tonight. Okay. We have the minutes of the meeting of, this is awkward. I don't know if anybody can hear me or not. Yes, we can hear you. Who are you? Thank you. We have the minutes of the meeting of August 18th. Now I hear it. Apologize. I'll answer your phone. Yeah, Tom, I hear you. Well, he's doing that. I'm gonna go see if my ducks went in. I'll be right back. Sounds good. So I've got the chairman on my speakerphone. He's going to attend by speakerphone rather than Zoom. Okay. I have a question about the minutes. Is that what we're discussing? Can't hear him on the speakerphone. Well, he could also dial in. Usually Zoom has a dial in number. Oh, I see Zoom. Yeah, you just dial to Zoom. Might be easier. But either way, whichever's gonna be easier. We've got a delivery tonight. Well, first of all, we've got to deal with the minutes. So we're having a hard time cooking Bob back in. Go all the way back. We need to get out of this Zoom thing. I know. I'd love to. I'd love this pandemic to be over. Yeah. Well, I saw at least 15 vaccines are in trial. Yeah. That came out from Bob totally, right? Yeah. Now is Orca still on? This is Otto. I don't know what that means. Yeah, they're still here. I was, I don't know if you remember it was planning commission or DRB, but I went out and my poor ducks, the door had blown shut. And they couldn't get in there hot. And it was dark and I had no idea where they were. I had to go search them out and getting them to come out. They're hiding in the blackberry bushes, getting them to come out and go back in was. Very difficult. Thank you. I don't think they can see in the dark. They would not come out. How many ducks do you have? Well, I have six and then we have another flock. Well, that's 10. So all together we have 16. That's a lot of ducks. They're really, they're really funny to watch. Of course they're now in the road all the time. I'm sure all the neighbors are very sick of my ducks. They're constantly having to slow down to go by here. Right. Oh gosh, I'm tired. Yeah, there are, I see a list of six different phone numbers that can be used. Yeah. Just to dial directly into zoom. Yeah. For this meeting. With the meeting number, it's. It's a lot better than trying to do speakerphone with. Yeah. Well, I don't know what. What the plan is here. I know. Well, I would think we'd at least want to deal with the minutes. And maybe deliberate on the short application. And then I don't know we're meeting again in two weeks, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yes. One application. The state thing, the parking ride thing. It's just that one issue. But I am uncomfortable deliberating without Tom there has. Not Tom. I'm sorry, Bob. I know. Well, that's what I'm saying. It might be better. Tom is Bob calling in or what? We lost Tom now too. He's ignoring us. He is. He just being more forthright about it. It looks serious though. It looks very serious. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, I'm ready to go. Well, I guess officially you're in charge Carla. I guess, but I. Frankly, I'm sure Bob has changes to the minutes. Yeah. So I hate to do anything without him on the line. I don't think we can make any decisions. Without him. It's funny because I don't remember him having this much trouble. No, this seems to be today. I wonder is it stormy out or anything? Is there a storm? I mean, we're supposed to get some stuff eventually, but I think that's tomorrow. Yeah. I mean, I did. Did you hear about what was it last? Was it last week when zoom went down on a lot of places or something? Yeah. I'm sure that's not what's happening tonight because we're all here, but it was just kind of interesting. They were having all kinds of trouble because I think it was half the morning zoom was down and. Bunch of cities or something. Wow. Well, I'm just down the street from Bob. I mean, we're kind of around the corner down the street. You're not having any trouble. No, no. I'm around the corner from where Tom is now. No, I just looked at the radar. There's nothing. For miles and miles. Just the wonders of internet out here. I know. How did you hear where we. Should get funding for the first fiber. You know, in the new fiber district. Wow. Yeah. Yeah. Berlin, et cetera. Remember, there are 19 towns that are in that. What are, what is it called? It's not the central Vermont one because that's the one just south of us. But what we voted on in town meeting, not this last time. I don't remember. That money came in. That money came in and yeah. So. It looks like they're going to do the first fiber within a year. Here in this area. What will I do? What's the. Well, actually that'll, that'll give you gig a bit internet if you're next to the fiber. Now, of course, it's going to take some time to get it all laid out, but. The money's coming in and it hasn't even required investment. I don't know if you remember that meeting, but I actually volunteered to, to invest. Because I desperately want good internet out here. And. Is that affiliated with a company or as can any come, I mean, how does that work? Well, yeah, that's. You know, I mean, let's say Jeremy's the Jeremy Hanson's the one to really talk to. He's the one who's been spearheading this. He's also. You know, the, the, the, the chair of that, of that. District. It's some kind of utility type district. So that, but the, the towns are not fiscally responsible for anything. So it has independence in terms of fiscal responsibility. And so far. Yeah. So far it has not needed any investment. It's getting it entirely through federal funds and state funds. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah. So I think this is going to happen. But yeah, talk, talk to Jeremy. He's the one making it happen. Where are they going to locate the fiber? Well, the first fiber is honestly not going to be right next to us. It's going to be one of, one of the other towns that I don't remember specifically, but that's just, you know, scheduling. So once that gets started, one would hope it'll start going pretty quickly, but. We'll see what happens. The other. Yeah, go ahead. Tom, what's happening? Tom. Tom still can't hear us. He's not on mute anymore. He caught whatever Bob got. Well, let's chat him up. What is going on? Tom. We can use sign language. We cannot hear it. Let's just chat here. Let's just chat. What is happening? There you go. Got it. My vote is that we adjourn and deal with all this the next meeting in two weeks. Because. Clearly things aren't working. It's even nowhere. Do you even know we're still here? I hope so. Oh, oh. I sent that out to everyone. Yeah. Hopefully Tom and Bob will see it. Everyone can talk and hear each other except for Tom and Bob. That's right. I mean. Well, I don't know. I've got things to do. All right. We're, we are signing off. Well, why don't we make a motion? You're. Oh, yeah. First of all, Carla, you're in charge. I'll move that we go ahead and adjourn for today. You're moving down. Yes. Yes. Okay. Well, I don't know who Tom's talking to, but he's not talking to us. So any discussion? Well, I have one thing to, one thing to just say is. Ask do. Tom's doing a team for his first initial. We still cannot hear. Why can't we hear you? Can't hear you. Well, you. We can't hear you at all. You're on mute or something. No, he's not. Well, it doesn't look like he is, but he clearly is. Maybe he's lost his voice. Send us a message. I was going to say, no matter what, we should probably try to come up with another time or at least how we're going to do that. Before two weeks. Oh, I don't know how we do that without Bob. Right. And Tom. Can you hear us? Yes. Okay. Well, we can't hear you. Why don't you chat, use the chat, at least type to us. Okay. One minute. Oh. What's going on? You just keep shaking his head. I'm shaking while he's saying, can you hear me now? I noticed that. No. This is bizarre. Oh, you can't, you're the host. That's right. He can assign someone else. There you are. Oh no, that was John. Tom can't participate either. Apparently. So I still think we're back to, there's a motion on the floor. Unfortunately. And a second. Yes. Can you guys hear me? Oh, wow. What happened? What's going on? Hold on. Bob, are you still there? No, he's not. I'm still here. Can you guys hear Bob? Yeah. I could. Yeah. Okay. Can you hear me now? Can you hear Bob now? Yes. Speak Bob. Speak Bob. All right. I. It's ridiculous. Yeah. I apologize. I don't know why my job is not working. Can everyone hear Bob? Yes. Yes. Okay, Bob, we're, we're good to go now. Okay. Well, I. I thought of it. I followed. Conversation. I think we need to find a better time when we can reverse and we can all get together. I'm not sure how to do that. We've never had this much trouble with zoom before. Have we? Hey, Bob, it's sure it's on your end only. It's your, it's your internet. Everybody else. Would it be just as a possibility? Would it be something you could do, Bob, to. Go into the office. That's not that big a deal. And we get started. Can we do that, Tom? Yes. So, you know, I can be there and far enough away so we can be socially distance and, and, you know, this is what we're doing. So it's not a big deal to do this. I'm not sure if you're aware of the. Character of the thing here. Not a big deal. This, this is awkward. I had a few suggestions to the minutes. Did anybody else have suggestions for the minutes? Well, I had a question under the lighting plan. Because our first bullet. a revised plan complies with the maximum. Then down it says, you know, then it mentions a few bullets down that it's, you said that the light was too bright, you know, that it was exceeded the requirement. So there's a little contradiction in the minutes that should be cleared up. And maybe what should be the first bullet may be the applicant says it meets the maximum. Yes, I think that's what it is. I'm terrified because it's confusing the way it is. So Polly, can you send a note? I actually suggest we change that, we change that to that the average foot candle should not exceed two foot candles. Right. And scratch that part of our route that complies because it's not complied. Right. I see what you're saying. I think the applicant did say it complied but it did not because the way they calculated it. Right. So my simplification would just simply say the average foot candles should not exceed two foot candles, period. Okay. That would help. I think that makes sense. That would take care of that contradiction. Yeah. Okay. Also further down the fourth bullet. Yeah. Talking about the lighting. Yeah. I just want to clarify that I noted that in the last part of that bullet that I noted that the lighting for the lot on good now road was average 7.2 foot candles and the lighting on the other lot average 6.5 foot candles. That's what it says at the table. Yeah. That's what led us to this place where we said, no, you got to revise those. So I would suggest we change that one, that bullet to read that he noted that the average foot candles with a lot of good now road to 7.2 and a lot on the road. Marvin. Marvin, thank you, was 6.5 foot candles, not two foot candles. That was an odd edit I was going to suggest we make. I also suggested the edits should be made to the those that were present. Does not note that Mr. Toll was present. Also does not note that Mr. Toll was sworn in by the chair. So we need to correct those two things that Mr. Able Toll was present for the meeting that he was sworn in. All the others were previously under oath. Can everybody hear me? Yes. We're not all nodding. You can't just nod. That does not help me much. Thank you. Don't do my two edits, three edits, I think. Did anybody have any other edits or corrections? Nope, no. No. I made a motion to accept these edits as amended. So moved. By the way, I already shared these edits with second John. How's that? Paulie moved and John second. Bob. All right. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. John aye. Okay. We have approved the minutes as amended. The ball goes to 18. I would want to try to deliberate tonight or do we want to put this off to where we can have a better communication? I would request that you deliberate on the first item on tonight's agenda. Tonight. The first item on the agenda tonight. The Mark Nicholson project. All right. I'm good with that. Because I think that's quick and easy. The other one is going to take us time because there are a number of conditions we want to be clear about. There's certain conditions I think that we have not resolved yet and we need to talk about and resolve them. Bob, we need to talk about this in a deliberative session. We're still, okay? Okay. We're still in public. We're still in public. I'll entertain a moment for a deliberative session. Carla moved. I hope we go into a deliberative session. It's 8.24.